Randomness

[exchemist]

In light of this, I think it's worth asking: what experiment could scientists possibly conduct to confirm or reject the hypothesis that an event (such as a mutation) happened by conscious decision (or 'intelligent' decision)? We might want to start by discussing what a conscious decision is.

I suggest the usual answer to that is statistical: collect a large number of events and look for patterns. If no pattens can be found, the events are judged to be random.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't care if your talking on a molecular or even a quantum level the series of events I described simply don't make sense without freewill. No matter how small you want to shrink things down you won't find anything that wants to oblige steps B - Z and so they can't be (at least the full) explanation of what is going on there. And keep in mind the amount of steps between a desire and most fulfillments are not as long as the alphabet they are as numerous as the letters on a DNA strand. You just aren't going to show they all obligingly line up for the trillions of events in billions of our lives no matter how microscopic you make them. In fact shrinking things makes it worse because you wind up with "less stuff" potentially capable of accomplishing anything.

The science of genetics has demonstrated that natural processes are the cause of DNA forming and mutating in the evolution of life. There is no need of obligatory forces for this to come about. The development of RNA and DNA does involve billions of events. It involves one event at a time over billions of years based on fundamental chemical principles and the environment life formed.

Can't you accept the possibility that freewill exist.

The various compatabilist hypothesis do not assume free will does not exist. The compatibilistic proposal of Dennett is only one many.

If you include freewill with determinism you get a perfectly harmonious description of events. If you only allow determinism you get mountains of stuff that just doesn't make sense.

Free Will is not known to exist prior to the existence of humans. Natural Laws prevent the so called 'mountains of stuff that does not make sense,

What you lack is a basic knowledge of chemistry and genetics to make the assertions you make.

 

[shunyadragon]

I suggest the usual answer to that is statistical: collect a large number of events and look for patterns. If no pattens can be found, the events are judged to be random.

Not so simple. If the events are related with the same variables and criteria you will not find randomness. You are likely to find a fractal relationship of the outcomes with a known causal relationship. That pretty much part of the criteria of statistical.

 

[exchemist]

Not so simple. If the events are related with the same variables and criteria you will not find randomness. You are likely to find a fractal relationship of the outcomes with a known causal relationship. That pretty much part of the criteria of statistical.

OK. But how then do we ever establish a lack of statistically significant correlation?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK. But how then do we ever establish a lack of statistically significant correlation?

When the statistical test selected fails to show a statistical significance and correlation and confirms the hypothesis of an experiment. Most often, depending on the test selected the relationship can be weak moderate or strong. Statistical analysis involves planned, controlled variables, and does not involve uncontrolled groups of objects or cause and effect events.

Conclusions are for a statistical significant relationship or not by degree, and not whether it is random or not.

 

[exchemist]

When the statistical test selected fails to show a statistical significance and correlation and confirms the hypothesis of an experiment. Most often, depending on the test selected the relationship can be weak moderate or strong. Statistical analysis involves planned, controlled variables, and does not involve uncontrolled groups of objects or cause and effect events.

Conclusions are for a statistical significant relationship or not by degree, and not whether it is random or not.

Ah, so do I interpret this to mean that such analysis can only be done if one attempts to correlate the observed events with some chosen, specific other variable?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK. But how then do we ever establish a lack of statistically significant correlation?

The best example are trial experiments of new drugs. The criteria of the relationship between the drug and the desired treatment result is established before hand in the controlled trials. The results may show a strong, moderate, weak or no effect. There is no consideration of whether the result is random or not, but whether the result is significant by degree from strong to none.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, so do I interpret this to mean that such analysis can only be done if one attempts to correlate the observed events with some chosen, specific other variable?

True, the statistical results are only valid under controlled conditions.

 

[exchemist]

The best example are trial experiments of new drugs. The criteria of the relationship between the drug and the desired treatment result is established before hand in the controlled trials. The results may show a strong, moderate, weak or no effect. There is no consideration of whether the result is random or not, but whether the result is significant by degree from strong to none.

I think one would have to accept a finding of lack of significant correlation as the best proxy for "random" in a context like this. After all, it is only creationists who attach such importance to this specific word, so if the best one can do is find an absence of significant correlation that would have to do.

But more tricky is that if the types of mutation do not correlate with anything, you are saying one could only establish this by selecting a series of potential influences and doing a trial yielding a negative (ie.not statistically significant) result on each of them in turn. Correct? If so I can see how it might be hard to demonstrate that there was no influence that might correlate with them. The creationist might always say aha, you just have not found the correlating influence yet.

In which case we are back to turning the issue round and saying it is those who assert there is a correlation, i.e mutations are directed, to show that there is a statistically significant correlation with some chosen factor or variable.

Does that sound reasonable?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think one would have to accept a finding of lack of significant correlation as the best proxy for "random" in a context like this.

To assign randomness to anything you have to conclude no known order, cause nor relationship, and this does not work here.

After all, it is only creationists who attach such importance to this specific word, so if the best one can do is find an absence of significant correlation that would have to do.

It is more the classic misuse of a word, 'random,' with a vague layman's definition and use that is the problem. Science explains these relationships well without confusing things by using the term.

But more tricky is that if the types of mutation do not correlate with anything, you are saying one could only establish this by selecting a series of potential influences and doing a trial yielding a negative (ie.not statistically significant) result on each of them in turn. Correct? If so I can see how it might be hard to demonstrate that there was no influence that might correlate with them. The creationist might always say aha, you just have not found the correlating influence yet.

In which case we are back to turning the issue round and saying it is those who assert there is a correlation, i.e mutations are directed, to show that there is a statistically significant correlation with some chosen factor or variable.

Does that sound reasonable?

First like with any individual event in any scenario there are no assumptions on cause effect outcomes on single event or single things. It is possible individual cause and effect events have no known outcome, but something being unknown does not make it random. This is the common trap creationists make concerning their accusation of randomness and they claim no natural cause be assigned to their assumptions of very low probability on the outcome of a chain of single events extrapolated to millions if not trillions of events. Evolution does not take place in a chain of single events.

The example of the science of evolution is that evolution does not take place in an individual, ie first individual of a species, Species evolve as populations over time and not individuals. In fact even the species concept is seriously in question in science, because even though you may define a species at one point of time, but this breaks down when you try to define species over a long period of time.

 

[Audie]

What you lack is a basic knowledge of chemistry and genetics to make the assertions you make.

I wonder how people can manage to not even know
enough to realize that about themselves

 

[Audie]

In fact even the species concept is seriously in question in science, because even though you may define a species at one point of time, but this breaks down when you try to define species over a long period of time.

Are you presenting "in serious question" as if this were
something new? I've seen it described as a "useful fiction".

What do you actually mean by "serious question"?

Like, abandon the term, or what?

 

[viole]

As you probably guessed I am not much of a Dennett fan, I think he is a lousy philosopher.



Choices don't exist without freewill. Also the range of events I described did not occur within too limited of a range. If Atoms ricocheting off each other is all that determines events then after every intentional thought I had just about any secondary event could have taken place. The fact that hundreds of events transpired that allowed me to fulfill my intention suggest that blind forces are not what governed these events (choices). Again if you get hungry (and atoms in motion don't care if you starve to death) why were these blind forces so obliging as to perform the hundreds of necessary actions that allowed you to actual eat some food? No, the fact is to explain the set of all events you need both determinism and free will). Either one alone just isn't enough to explain intentional fulfillment.

I don't agree that the event that follows another occurs within a narrow range. If atoms in motion determine all events can you imagine the size of the set of all possible actions that follow from a previous action? It's incomprehensively large. Lets say you think to yourself that you want to call a family member, the amount of actions that can follow that thought are countless if blind physics is determining events. Why is a force that has no intentionality so obliging as to let you go through the hundreds of actions required for you to actually place the call? So far I simply can't make you reconcile this fact with your worldview. Nothing else in our posts makes any difference unless you can reckon with these trillions of intentional thoughts that are being fulfilled (supposedly) by a force that does not care anything about fulfilling anything.



I don't find your rejection of a scholar as well credentialed as Fred Hoyle persuasive. It appear to be a desperation move but maybe you could explain further. I am not sure what aspect of reality Fred was referring to when he made the statement about but I can think of one that it does apply to. The teleological argument for God (Fine tuning argument) suggests very strongly that our universe exhibits intentionality in even it's most remote events. For the universe to support advanced life (be consistent with God's purpose) it must be balanced on a knife edge. Many of the relationships like strong nuclear force, expansion rate, symmetry breaking have constants thrown into their relationships that must all be exactly what they are to get any universe than can support life. Keep in mind this is no sharp shooter fallacy, this (if life is the prize) is basically the universe winning the life lottery over and over and over again against unimaginable odds and these odds are multiplication not additive. Just as if the same person kept winning the same lottery over and over and over we would all suspect manipulation of an intelligent source so with the universe. It appear as he stated that a super intellects has monkeyed with all the relationships in the universe. Sorry I did not intend to spend so much time on this footnote.

I can quote similar conclusions from hundreds of scientists including the most modern but you can see that Hoyle logic is sound just by looking at the example I gave above. I suspect your rejection of Hoyle is based on some level of bias instead of his actual abilities. In a contest between your credentials and Hoyle's it should be obvious (all things being equal) who's I should place my trust in.



Modern science (abstract science) is because of the faith of men like Hoyle. One of the greatest works on the subject (can't recall the name) written by an atheist examined why it was that modern science (not technological innovation) was discovered only in the heart of the Christian west of all places. As much as the Atheist author tried he kept having to conclude that the reason was directly related to the scientists faith (78% of Nobel Laureates are Christians with many of the rest being Jews). The reason was that Christian scientists believed that God (being rational) would create a rational universe. Their scientific efforts were the result of their trying to decode the rationality out of the universe they believe God had put in it.


Look, all this stuff is interesting but you have not touched my central claim. Why are trillions of intentional states fulfilled by a force that has no interest in fulfilling anyone's intention. Why are atoms in motion so obliging despite having no will. You can't explain this by determinism alone but I wish you would at least try. Until you do my trillions of examples of freewill remain perfectly intact. Explain to me why uncaring physical forces would enable us to carry on a debate it cares nothing for. Which cares for and intends nothing at all.

I am not sure you ever answered that satisfactorily when I asked you:

What is the ultimate cause of your choice (plug in any choice at will here)?

Is it ultimately caused by the uncaused cause (God and such) or did it pop out from nothing without a cause?

Or, is there a third alternative? Infinite regress maybe? Or was it a random event that started a chain of events that led you to choose X onstead of Y?

What is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ponder This]

And one aspect of this is that the quantum uncertainty for dice is small enough that a classical calculation is sufficient.

And in isolation, that would be a valid issue. But, it turns out that for anything approaching macroscopic, simple background photons are enough to decohere that sort of superposition very quickly. But, since Planck's constant is small, such is not the case for electrons.

The big different is that the background flux of photons is enough to decohere that superposition and force it into positional ground states. For dice this happens very quickly because Planck's constant is so small. This doesn't happen for electrons.

Actually, I'd say the uncertainty principle is derived from non-commutation. Yes, this is a mathematical model intended to predict the results of observation: that's what it means to be a scientific theory. Any two theories that are observationally equivalent are viewed as the *same theory*.

In quantum mechanical terms, yes they are. Or, at least, the range of, say positional superpositions is quite limited. And, again, because of the size of Planck's constant, you have very small variance in the values of any observable.

You can observe them in the air using ambient light, which is enough to collapse the positional observable, and use a few images from microseconds apart to compute the rest of the trajectory classically and determine the result. There is simply not enough quantum aspect here (read: Planck's constant is small) for quantum effects to dominate.

Are you arguing that thrown dice are not 'random' and QM is 'random'?
Is your reasoning that we have developed sufficient tools of prediction for dice and we haven't developed sufficient tools of prediction for particles? In other words, the 'randomness' of it is dependent upon the sophistication of our technology? In other words, once upon a time we didn't have sufficient tools to predict the outcome of the dice throw, but because of our technological development dice throws have, all of a sudden, ceased to be 'random'?

We need to talk about what random means, because I don't think you are understanding what I've said about dice and QM.

Yes, the violation of Bell's inequalities requires non-commuting variables. More specifically, the collection of all observables has to form a non-commutative algebra since commutative ones lead to ordinary probability measures which obey Bell's theorem.

But the *essential* difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is *precisely* the non-commutation of the observables! Once you have that, you are automatically equivalent to operators on a Hilbert space.

I don't agree or disagree with this, but I want to know what this has to do with randomness. Bell's inequalities came up because you were trying to make a statement about the fundamental nature of particles. I don't think you are saying anything new here and my responses would be a repetition of what I've already said. There is sufficient disagreement about what is meant by (how to interpret) Quantum Mechanics that I'm not sure we are going to come to a productive end if we argue about what Quantum Mechanics means.

So perhaps we should focus on whether or not we can come to a sufficient agreement about the meaning of 'random' and leave off, for now, the question of whether or not Quantum Mechanics is 'random'. What would be required for us to declare that something is 'random'.

OK, I disagree with that definition. In my mind random means 'cannot be predicted from previous events, even in theory". Consciousness is a *completely* unrelated phenomenon.

Do I understand you correctly: before we understood that the speed of light was constant in all mediums, the speed of light was 'random'? This is because the theory did not predict the speed of light.

Well, that is a very interesting question, I admit. But it seems to be a very *different* question than that of randomness as I understand the term. The action of gravity, for example, is not random, but it is also not the result of a method or conscious decision.

You seem willing to assert that 'gravity' is 'not the result of a method or conscious decision'. Is there an experiment that confirms this hypothesis?
You also say that 'gravity' is 'not random'. To what precisely are you referring?
F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is an equation we use for prediction. Are you referring to the "Law of Gravity" as an immaterial thing in our imaginations that we use as a tool for prediction? Or are you referring to the action of objects subjected to a Force of Gravity where the masses and radii of influences may or may not be known and therefore the resultant force on an object may not be precisely known?

So, for example, we know the approximate mass of the Earth (we don't know the precise mass of the Earth). This allows us to predict the acceleration due to the Earth's force of gravity, within a specified area around the world, to within a certain margin of error, but we remain unable to predict with absolute certainty the precise acceleration of an object at any point and time due to all of the collective forces upon it, in spite of having an equation for universal gravitation. And experimental data confirms that the acceleration due to gravity at any particular point on Earth varies slightly over time.

I think 'random' refers to things that we don't predict in practice or don't make a conscious effort to control. Every science experiment has potential influences that introduce error. The influences that cause variations in measurement are 'random', are they not? What word would you use to describe the cause of these errors?

 

[Ponder This]

I suggest the usual answer to that is statistical: collect a large number of events and look for patterns. If no pattens can be found, the events are judged to be random.

The problem that I see here is that when scientists collect a large number of events and looks for patterns, they come up with things like the equation for universal gravitation and when they fail to find a pattern, then they say there it's random. But Newton's law of universal gravitation is not attributed any sort of 'consciousness' or 'intelligence'. So the discovery of a 'pattern' seems to be woefully insufficient in itself to indicate the action of a consciousness. Are we looking for a pattern with some additional properties? What additional properties do we require?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you arguing that thrown dice are not 'random' and QM is 'random'?

Yes, that is precisely my position.

Dice can be describe via classical mechanics to the extent required to predict their results.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand is *inherently* random.

Is your reasoning that we have developed sufficient tools of prediction for dice and we haven't developed sufficient tools of prediction for particles? In other words, the 'randomness' of it is dependent upon the sophistication of our technology? In other words, once upon a time we didn't have sufficient tools to predict the outcome of the dice throw, but because of our technological development dice throws have, all of a sudden, ceased to be 'random'?

No, it is dependent on the fact that dice are macroscopic objects where the quantum randomness doesn't significantly affect the end results.

We need to talk about what random means, because I don't think you are understanding what I've said about dice and QM.

OK, what does randomness mean to you? I've stated that, for me, randomness means that it is impossible to predict what will happen *even in theory*. Chaos, as opposed to randomness, can happen in deterministic systems and amounts to sensitive dependence on initial conditions making it *difficult* to predict results, but not impossible in theory.

I don't agree or disagree with this, but I want to know what this has to do with randomness. Bell's inequalities came up because you were trying to make a statement about the fundamental nature of particles. I don't think you are saying anything new here and my responses would be a repetition of what I've already said. There is sufficient disagreement about what is meant by (how to interpret) Quantum Mechanics that I'm not sure we are going to come to a productive end if we argue about what Quantum Mechanics means.

I find most attempts to determine what QM 'means' to be an attempt to force QM into a classical model. That, to me, is backwards: we explain why the old model works based on the new one, NOT the details of the new one based on the old model. QM has supplanted classical mechanics and classical notions of causality. Trying to force classical notions into it is doomed to fail.

So perhaps we should focus on whether or not we can come to a sufficient agreement about the meaning of 'random' and leave off, for now, the question of whether or not Quantum Mechanics is 'random'. What would be required for us to declare that something is 'random'.

I gave my working definition above.

Do I understand you correctly: before we understood that the speed of light was constant in all mediums, the speed of light was 'random'? This is because the theory did not predict the speed of light.

No. The speed of light *wasn't* unpredictable *even in theory*. Given sufficient data, the speed could be resolved.

You seem willing to assert that 'gravity' is 'not the result of a method or conscious decision'. Is there an experiment that confirms this hypothesis?

Huh? is there *any* evidence to even suggest an intelligence is involved? No. Instead, we have definite dynamical laws (physical laws) that we can use to predict future events.

You also say that 'gravity' is 'not random'. To what precisely are you referring?
F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is an equation we use for prediction. Are you referring to the "Law of Gravity" as an immaterial thing in our imaginations that we use as a tool for prediction? Or are you referring to the action of objects subjected to a Force of Gravity where the masses and radii of influences may or may not be known and therefore the resultant force on an object may not be precisely known?

Our ability to measure doesn't affect the ability *in theory* to make specific predictions for gravity. And, in practice, we can and do make such predictions with high quality results. That means the action of gravity is not random. The orbits of the planets are not random.

This is distinctly different than what happens in QM, where *even in theory*, the results of an observation of a superpositional state cannot be predicted, even if we have perfect information about that state beforehand (i.e, what states it is the superposition of and with what weights).


So, for example, we know the approximate mass of the Earth (we don't know the precise mass of the Earth). This allows us to predict the acceleration due to the Earth's force of gravity, within a specified area around the world, to within a certain margin of error, but we remain unable to predict with absolute certainty the precise acceleration of an object at any point and time due to all of the collective forces upon it, in spite of having an equation for universal gravitation. And experimental data confirms that the acceleration due to gravity at any particular point on Earth varies slightly over time.

I think 'random' refers to things that we don't predict in practice or don't make a conscious effort to control. Every science experiment has potential influences that introduce error. The influences that cause variations in measurement are 'random', are they not? What word would you use to describe the cause of these errors?[/QUOTE]

 

[exchemist]

The problem that I see here is that when scientists collect a large number of events and looks for patterns, they come up with things like the equation for universal gravitation and when they fail to find a pattern, then they say there it's random. But Newton's law of universal gravitation is not attributed any sort of 'consciousness' or 'intelligence'. So the discovery of a 'pattern' seems to be woefully insufficient in itself to indicate the action of a consciousness. Are we looking for a pattern with some additional properties? What additional properties do we require?

Good question: ask a creationist. They are the ones asserting that "design", or purposeful action, can somehow be objectively detected in nature.

I would maintain the notion of searching for design is doomed, as there is no way to define design in a way that is free from subjective comparisons with human design. Why would the "design" of the eye be any more "designed" than the order of an array of ions in a crystal, or indeed the law of gravitation?

As for purposeful action, human beings are constantly falling into the trap of teleological thinking, probably because anthropomorphising nature makes it easy to picture what happens. Hence we speak, figuratively, of molecules "wanting" to find their lowest energy level and so forth. Objectively detecting purpose seems doomed in the same way as design, in this case because the "purpose" can't be discerned until after the event, at which point anybody can assert, meaninglessly, that the outcome is what was intended all along.

This sort of issue is one of several reasons why creationism, and more specifically "Intelligent Design", simply are not scientific concepts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you arguing that thrown dice are not 'random' and QM is 'random'?
Is your reasoning that we have developed sufficient tools of prediction for dice and we haven't developed sufficient tools of prediction for particles? In other words, the 'randomness' of it is dependent upon the sophistication of our technology? In other words, once upon a time we didn't have sufficient tools to predict the outcome of the dice throw, but because of our technological development dice throws have, all of a sudden, ceased to be 'random'?

We need to talk about what random means, because I don't think you are understanding what I've said about dice and QM.

The problem is the vague layman's definition and use of random. Neither the role of dice nor the attributes of QM are truly 'random.' This argument extends to genetic mutations and radiation decay,The argument centers around whether individual events can be predicted. It is true the 'timing' of individual events cannot be predicted, but the cause and effect of the processes and the pattern and order of the processes can be predicted and understood. Use of the term random in these cases serves no constructive nor descriptive purpose.

I think 'random' refers to things that we don't predict in practice or don't make a conscious effort to control.

This would not be a workable definition of 'random.'

Every science experiment has potential influences that introduce error. The influences that cause variations in measurement are 'random', are they not? What word would you use to describe the cause of these errors?

The potential influences that may(?) introduce error are called variables, and the more variables involved the more variable the outcome is based on fractal math described in chaos theory. I would not describe this as the cause of errors(?), but the cause of the variation in the outcomes.

It would help if you would give more specific examples where unknown(?) variables cause errors(?).

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you presenting "in serious question" as if this were
something new? I've seen it described as a "useful fiction".

What do you actually mean by "serious question"?

Like, abandon the term, or what?

There are so many discoveries of intermediate fossils and a diversity within populations over time that that drawing conclusions where one defined species begins and another starts is becoming more difficult. For example it has become increasingly difficult to define the Neanderthals as a distinct species from Homo Sapiens. IT is true that over time some species do become very distinct and isolated from other relatives to be called a distinct species at one time in the evolutionary time frame, but in over all evolution over time the desliniation has become increasingly difficult.

The direction of the science of evolution is the evolution of populations over time, and not distinct delineations of one species evolving into another distinct species over time. in related species

 

[Audie]

There are so many discoveries of intermediate fossils and a diversity within populations over time that that drawing conclusions where one defined species begins and another starts is becoming more difficult. For example it has become increasingly difficult to define the Neanderthals as a distinct species from Homo Sapiens

There is no "serious question" that I am aware of;
these things you say are long and well known to all.

Do you propose we abandon the term?

If not, why bring it up, and if so-

Next, we will lose "blue" and, "green" for lo, the
one blends imperceptibly into other; and before
long too, "night" and "day" will have lost all meaning.